Lechmere Continuation Thread

[David Orsam]

Of course, the first person to find the body needs to be checked out. I see no other reason to suspect Lechmere beyond this fact.

Well it's an undisputed fact that Mizen testified that Lechmere told him he was wanted by a policeman and Lechmere denied saying it So there is, at the very least, a conflict of evidence. I really don't know how you have managed to resolve this conflict of evidence in Lechmere's favour. As far as I can tell, you appear to have assumed that because Lechmere wasn't arrested he was cleared by the police but that's a rather big assumption.

But this conflict of evidence which, if Mizen is correct, means that Lechmere lied, must surely be a reason to at least classify Lechmere as a subject or if you prefer, as someone worthy of a closer look.

If you don't agree with that, it seems we are not going to get any further on this issue.

[John G]

Of course, the first person to find the body needs to be checked out. I see no other reason to suspect Lechmere beyond this fact.



So was PC Thain, but he denied telling the slaughtermen about the murder. Don't assume policemen are whiter than white and wouldn't cover their asses if the need arose. And just to reiterate, I'm not claiming that Mizen lied, just that it's one man's word against another.

Yes, of course a police officer might lie. However, PC Mizen was an officer with an unblemished record. On the other hand, Lechmere was found with a victim, who according to Paul's evidence might, at that stage, have still been alive, i.e. he stated that he thought she might still be breathing.

He may have been mistaken, however, it means at the very least that Lechmere cannot be completely disregarded as a suspect.

[David Orsam]

So was PC Thain, but he denied telling the slaughtermen about the murder.

What Thain did or did not say is irrelevant but I think you'll find that what Thain denied is the accusation that he went to speak to the slaughtermen before going to fetch the doctor (i.e. he didn't deny speaking to them at all). And I don't think he was lying about that.

[Pierre]

Not sure what you're pretending not to understand; we seem to have gone full circle. If you really don't understand why blood flowing from Nichols throat means she is dead then you do need to read Dr Llewellyn's testmony.

Don΄t worry, Mr Lucky. That sort of arguments are typical in David World.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

Thanks for this, David. This clearly illustrates that PC Mizen was a very well-thought of police officer, and I therefore see no reason why it should be assumed he lied, whereas Lechmere, a man found with a dead body, told the absolute truth.

Hitler was a well thought of Fόhrer by many.

Regards, Pierre

[John G]

Hitler was a well thought of Fόhrer by many.

Regards, Pierre

I'm not sure of the analogy you're trying to make. Do you, for instance, believe that PC Mizen thought that the British Empire should expand eastwards at the expense of the Russian Empire? Or that he had plans for world domination? And why would that be relevant to the present discussion?

The simple fact is that there is nothing to suggest that PC Mizen was anything other than a diligent police officer. If you believe he wasn't then I suggest you provide supporting evidence, i.e. from relevant source material.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=David Orsam;388336]

But this conflict of evidence which, if Mizen is correct, means that Lechmere lied, must surely be a reason to at least classify Lechmere as a subject or if you prefer, as someone worthy of a closer look.

No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied. You must allow the sources to kick back. If you find sources with other types of narratives and wordings, those must be considered if they are good sources.

There is a very good possibility that both Mizen and Lechmere thought that they told the truth.

Telling the truth is NOT what is at stake here, but thinking that they did, since they were sworn.

People do often say things they believe to be true, which are not. You and me are examples of that, David.

So we must go to the sources. And what are the problems here?

1. We do not have the original sources.
2. The newspapers copy eachother.
3. We cannot decide upon which exact wording in the papers is the "correct" one (a correct copy of the original inquest testimonies) by counting articles having the same phraseology, since newspapers copied eachother.
4. Therefore we must find out which articles are the most likely to be the most accurate.
5. Closeness in time, dialogue and as few errors as possible is what we look for.

Regards, Pierre

[Pierre]

I'm not sure of the analogy you're trying to make. Do you, for instance, believe that PC Mizen thought that the British Empire should expand eastwards at the expense of the Russian Empire? Or that he had plans for world domination? And why would that be relevant to the present discussion?

The simple fact is that there is nothing to suggest that PC Mizen was anything other than a diligent police officer. If you believe he wasn't then I suggest you provide supporting evidence, i.e. from relevant source material.

OK. If you actually do not understand the example, here is another one: John Wayne Gacy was well thought of by many. And so was probably the police officer and serial killer Mikhail Popkov.

[John G]

OK. If you actually do not understand the example, here is another one: John Wayne Gacy was well thought of by many. And so was probably the police officer and serial killer Mikhail Popkov.

Is there any evidence that PC Mizen was a serial killer? Do you believe he may have been JtR?

I'm not saying PC Mizen could not have lied, simply that there is no reason to suppose he did. And, as I've noted several times now, it's ultimately the word of a sworn police officer, with an unblemished recorded, against that of a man discovered with a victim who, according to Paul, may still have been alive.

[David Orsam]

No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied.

Do you even bother to read the posts you are replying to Pierre?

Here's what I said (with some bold highlighting added for you):

'But this conflict of evidence which, if Mizen is correct, means that Lechmere lied, must surely be a reason to at least classify Lechmere as a subject or if you prefer, as someone worthy of a closer look'.

Your reply was "No, it does not mean that Lechmere lied".

Well, Pierre, you are self-evidently wrong because if Mizen is correct then Lechmere lied. Or perhaps you can show me how Mizen is correct (and Lechmere told him he was wanted by a policeman in Bucks Row) but Lechmere was telling the truth.

If you can't do it then perhaps you will so good as to modify your post to "Yes David you are right, it does mean that Lechmere lied".

[Mr Lucky]

To cut to the chase, that is the exact point that I am challenging. Nothing that Mizen said would have helped the jury to establish whether Nichols was dead or alive when he arrived on the scene.

That's correct, he is not establishing anything, Mizen is giving corroborative evidence not revealing new information.

And, in any event, Neil had already given evidence about the blood he saw when he arrived on the scene (before Mizen) so Mizen, who was not a doctor, could have added nothing.

They don't want Mizen to add anything, they want the evidence to corroborate.

[Mr Lucky]

I'm not saying that Nichols wasn't dead. I'm saying that Mizen referencing blood flowing from a throat wound would not have assisted the jury in determining whether she was dead or not.

As you say, the jury already had the evidence of both Dr Llewellyn and Neil and would already have known that Nichols was dead when Mizen arrived. So I'm suggesting there might have been another reason for Mizen giving evidence about the blood.

The jury (or anyone) may draw other conclusions about the evidence, and the blood at the scene had been under some scrutiny right from the start. I would suggest that if the case reached trial there would be considerably more evidence given about the blood than that used at the Inquest – and I bet we would know exactly when Dr Llewellyn arrived at the scene to the minute.

[Mr Lucky]

Mr Lucky.
Re your post 403,What have I made up?

“He cannot,under English law,be considered a suspect,and he never was.”

It's not only made up, but wrong and grossly misleading. Being considered a suspect (ie, a presumption based on suspicion) has nothing to do with it – a suspect is a term used in connection with arrest, not culpability. Try and understand what 'actus reas' means regarding a homicide with violence like the Nichols case.

[Mr Lucky]

Thanks for this, David. This clearly illustrates that PC Mizen was a very well-thought of police officer, and I therefore see no reason why it should be assumed he lied, whereas Lechmere, a man found with a dead body, told the absolute truth.

Interestingly the original default position on this point was that Mizen was such a good cop he must have taken the men's names down when they spoke to him – which was why poor innocent Charlie Cross gave a false name – it was just a spur of the moment decision. He was panicked about the gangs etc.

If anyone had suggested that Mizen had done anything wrong and not taken the men names there would be uproar from the 'don't think' brigade.

If you read Fish's article – even he unquestionably followed the ( at the time) standard version - Mizen took the men's names.

[Errata]

There is actually a paper floating around out there somewhere on people's reactions upon finding a dead body. And it's not as interesting a read as you might think, but it is sort of an interesting look at how it not only a frightening experience, but apparently a temporary mind blowing experience, disrupting sensory input, memory, speech, executive function.... as well as potentially causing an existential crisis. I'll comb through my college papers and see if I can find it.

Point is people often arent right after finding a body, and are operating what is best referred to as auto pilot while their mind is sort of consumed with what they just saw. So imagine how consumed you might be with having to tell the kids their grandpa died, but in the meantime you have o go to the grocery store. God only knows what you will buy because you are distracted. Same principle. Plus, there is something called the replaced subject slip (I think) where if you are staring at topless woman and are one the phone with someone you might say "And get the breasts out of the oven" instead of "And get the turkey out of the oven" because you've replaced the subject with what you are staring at. So a distressed man might say " a policeman needs you" while staring at a policeman instead of "I need a policeman." Super common verbal gaffe.

For all I know Lechmere totally did it. Not really my thing. But it is worth allowing for the idea that a man under perfectly understandable stress behaved like a man under perfectly understandable stress. Even if you don't want to just assume that, at least allow it I think. Which doesn't clear him of guilt at all I suppose, but does mean that he might not have lied so much as just sort of had a communications failure.

And to be honest, it is also extremely common for people to rewrite events after a stressful event, so Mizner could have rearranged words in his memory, led to do so by the presence of a cop at his destination. There is a whole lot on why we sometimes say things we don't mean, or remember things that didn't happen. We had some research, but the Satanic Panic in the 80s really drove a lot of research in the 90s. It's fascinating. And possibly relevant to these events. The moral of the story is that it happens, for good reasons, and this is an event that could create such reasons, so it's a possibility. It's not about lying, or covering up. It's just about how our brains work after shock. This exchange does not strike me as suspicious. Nor does it strike me as proof on innocence. It just strikes me as fairly normal.